Well, I'd say it's good engineering and the entertainment value is still considerable . Actually building working and reliable hardware is difficult enough without fancy new technology (consider how long it took for someone to win the second Carmack prize), especially for an amateur project. If they really want to put a person into space in a reasonable amount of time, then this is the way to do it IMHO.

_________________Say, can you feel the thunder in the air? Just like the moment ’fore it hits – then it’s everywhereWhat is this spell we’re under, do you care? The might to rise above it is now within your sphereMachinae Supremacy – Sid Icarus

I take my hat off to this group. From the start Peter Madsen and co have consistently been putting their money where their mouth is.

Anyone that have read my other posts will know that I don't like unsubstantiated claims. CS is not in that category. When they say they are going to do something, they do it. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn't. The fact is they are solving problems by doing things and not just talking about doing things.

A lot of people say that funding it the only thing keeping them from doing what they talk about. (I plead guilty). CS has sponsors lined up for almost anything they need. Why? Because they are consistent. They started small and from there built up a reputation that backs up the claims they make and this is what sponsors want.

I wish CS only the best going forward. They may indeed become the first commercial sub-orbital 'joy-ride' company.

As for using what seems to be a copy/iteration of the Mercury/Gemini design, having their spacecraft resemble the aforementioned is easy. Making it work as well or better is the challenge.